State v. Moore
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1225
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- In 1985 two teenage girls (V.V., 14; K.P., 16) were separately abducted, threatened with a knife, forced to perform oral sex and vaginally raped in St. Louis; physical evidence (clothing) was seized.
- Both victims initially identified Lonnie Erby; Erby was tried, convicted and sentenced for those crimes in 1987, with both victims testifying against him.
- DNA testing in 2003 (at Innocence Project request) later matched semen on both victims’ clothing to Johnnie Moore; Moore was charged in 2010 and tried in 2012, convicted by a jury of two counts of rape and two counts of sodomy, and denied a new trial.
- Post-trial the State learned a victim-witness (K.P.) had received a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) on a later misdemeanor theft—information not disclosed before trial.
- Moore asserted (1) the State’s nondisclosure of K.P.’s SIS violated Rule 25.03 and Brady and prejudiced his trial, and (2) the State improperly elicited and used details of his prior convictions for propensity/impeachment.
- The court found: Rule 25.03 did not require disclosure of an SIS (not a conviction); Brady required disclosure but nondisclosure here was inadvertent and not prejudicial; and declined plain-error review on the prior-convictions claim. Judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Moore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to disclose K.P.’s SIS violated Rule 25.03 | Rule 25.03 requires disclosure of prior criminal convictions only; SIS is not a conviction so no violation | Nondisclosure of K.P.’s SIS breached Rule 25.03 and deprived Moore of impeachment material | Held: No Rule 25.03 violation—SIS is not a conviction and Moore did not invoke Rule 25.04 to seek broader records |
| Whether failure to disclose K.P.’s SIS violated Brady (constitutional) | State argued nondisclosure was inadvertent and that evidence was not material given DNA and other corroboration | Moore argued Brady imposes duty to disclose impeaching SIS and its suppression was prejudicial to his defense | Held: Brady duty existed (State was in possession), but nondisclosure was not prejudicial or material—no reversible constitutional error |
| Whether State improperly elicited details of Moore’s prior convictions on cross-examination | State argued it was correcting defendant’s misstatements and impeaching credibility after defendant opened the door | Moore argued details improperly showed propensity and exceeded permissible impeachment | Held: Moore failed to preserve the issue; court declined plain-error review and denied relief (no manifest miscarriage of justice shown) |
| Whether State used prior convictions as propensity evidence in closing | State rebutted defense credibility argument by outlining criminal history timeline to rebut credibility point | Moore argued timeline amounted to propensity evidence and prejudiced jury | Held: Not reviewed on plain-error grounds; appellate court refused relief given strong cumulative evidence of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose favorable/exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecution must learn and disclose favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady prejudice/materiality framework)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence falls within Brady)
- Merriweather v. State, 294 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. banc 2009) (diligence/possession analysis for Brady and discovery obligations)
- State ex rel. Engel v. Dormire, 304 S.W.3d 120 (Mo. banc 2010) (Brady elements summarized and applied)
- State v. Erby, 735 S.W.2d 148 (Mo.App.E.D. 1987) (prior prosecution/conviction of a different suspect for the same crimes; relevant background)